Journal of ophthalmology · 2026
Lacrimal Intubation in the Management of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: A Prospective Comparative Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rashdan Haitham Thabit, Korishy Mohamed Salah Hamed, Mahmoud Hany, Sinjab Alaa Abdalsadek Ahmed, Awny Islam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is a common cause of epiphora in children. Lacrimal intubation is often performed when probing fails, but the optimal approach remains debated. This study compared the outcomes of nasal endoscopy-guided and blind closed lacrimal intubation in pediatric patients with CNLDO.
METHODS: This prospective comparative study (single-center retrospectively registered) was conducted on 63 eyes of 39 children under 16 years. Participants were randomly assigned to blind closed intubation (n = 31) or nasal endoscopy-guided intubation (n = 32). Outcomes included operative time, epiphora score, fluorescein dye disappearance test (FDDT), complications, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: Operation time was significantly lower in the nasal endoscopy-guided group than that in the closed group (p < 0.001). Epiphora score, FDDT, postoperative complications, and satisfaction were comparable. Cut tube occurred in 3.23% of the blind group versus 3.45% of the nasal endoscopy-guided group, while cheese-wiring and persistent tube were observed in 3.23% and 6.9% of the blind cases compared with 6.9% and 6.9% of the nasal endoscopy-guided cases, respectively. Prominent tube and postoperative lacrimation were noted only in the nasal endoscopy-guided group (13.79% and 6.9%), whereas dacryocystitis and recurrence were confined to the blind group (6.45% and 12.9%). Regarding satisfaction, high satisfaction was reported in 70.97% of the blind group versus 59.38% of the nasal endoscopy-guided group, moderate satisfaction in 12.9% versus 31.25%, and no satisfaction in 16.13% versus 9.38%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both blind and endoscopic lacrimal intubation achieved high success rates in children with CNLDO. The nasal endoscopy-guided technique shortened operative time and offered better visualization, but overall outcomes and satisfaction were comparable. Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR): PACTR202510699342440.
METHODS: This prospective comparative study (single-center retrospectively registered) was conducted on 63 eyes of 39 children under 16 years. Participants were randomly assigned to blind closed intubation (n = 31) or nasal endoscopy-guided intubation (n = 32). Outcomes included operative time, epiphora score, fluorescein dye disappearance test (FDDT), complications, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: Operation time was significantly lower in the nasal endoscopy-guided group than that in the closed group (p < 0.001). Epiphora score, FDDT, postoperative complications, and satisfaction were comparable. Cut tube occurred in 3.23% of the blind group versus 3.45% of the nasal endoscopy-guided group, while cheese-wiring and persistent tube were observed in 3.23% and 6.9% of the blind cases compared with 6.9% and 6.9% of the nasal endoscopy-guided cases, respectively. Prominent tube and postoperative lacrimation were noted only in the nasal endoscopy-guided group (13.79% and 6.9%), whereas dacryocystitis and recurrence were confined to the blind group (6.45% and 12.9%). Regarding satisfaction, high satisfaction was reported in 70.97% of the blind group versus 59.38% of the nasal endoscopy-guided group, moderate satisfaction in 12.9% versus 31.25%, and no satisfaction in 16.13% versus 9.38%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both blind and endoscopic lacrimal intubation achieved high success rates in children with CNLDO. The nasal endoscopy-guided technique shortened operative time and offered better visualization, but overall outcomes and satisfaction were comparable. Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR): PACTR202510699342440.